Knowledge translation (KT) involves communication of research evidence. Within research-relevant organizations there is considerable overlap in the roles and activities associated with KT and strategic communications (SC), which calls for greater role clarity. We untangle the differences and similarities between KT and SC, bringing clarity that may benefit organizations employing both types of workers. As KT practitioners (KTPs) take hold in organizations that have long had SC personnel, there is tension but also opportunities for defining roles and exploring synergies. What follows is a description of how we have explored this duality within our networks and an analysis of how SC and KT roles are similar and divergent.L’application des connaissances (AC) suppose la communication des données de la recherche. Dans les organisations qui s’occupent de recherche, les rôles et les activités associés à l’AC et aux communications stratégiques (CS) se recoupent en maints endroits, à tel point qu’une clarification des rôles s’impose. Nous démêlons ici les différences et les ressemblances entre l’AC et les CS, dans une mise a point utile aux organisations qui emploient les deux types de travailleurs. En effet, à mesure que les professionnels de l’AC prennent leurs marques dans des lieux de travail où s’affaire depuis longtemps un personnel voué aux communications, des tensions se créent, mais aussi des occasions de définir les rôles respectifs et de développer une synergie. Voici comment nous avons exploré cette dualité au sein de nos réseaux, ainsi qu’une analyse des ressemblances et des divergences entre les CS et l’AC.

This field note places research summaries in the context of the knowledge mobilization literature and then describes the development, evaluation and dissemination of clear language research summaries as tools for research outreach, research communication and knowledge mobilization. The ResearchSnapshot clear language research summary format was developed with input from a Steering Committee comprised of academic and non-academic members. The research summary format was tested in roundtables of diverse research stakeholders and received positive feedback. The research summaries were then made accessible online and disseminated using a social media strategy. The use of twitter to enhance dissemination of the research summaries increased web traffic to the research summary database by 270%. This field note concludes with clear recommendations for individuals and organizations interested in developing their own clear language research summaries.

Until recently, the costs of litigating federal tax cases were borne exclusively by the parties who incurred them, regardless of whether the government or the taxpayer prevailed in the litigation. This practice reflects the application to tax disputes of the "American rule" against fee shifting. 1 Although the American rule continues to be predominant in the tax area, it has been modified in important respects. An explicit fee-reimbursement rule, benefiting prevailing taxpayers in cases in which the government is found to have acted unreasonably, was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). 2 TEFRA also increased substantially the penalties that could be imposed on taxpayers who are found to have instituted tax litigation on frivolous grounds, or primarily for delay. 3 The provisions are not precise counterparts of each other: one is a true fee-reimbursement rule, while the other is a penalty provision that is not directly tied to litigation costs. Nevertheless, the rules are similar in their effects on incentives to litigate tax cases.

No abstract

No abstract